War of the Worlds Sunday Night

[dpluxor]

Is there anyone at the BBC with any sense at all

I can just imagine the conversation at their daily scheduling meetings or whatever they have.

Guy 1 - "Right, lets show War of the Worlds on BBC1 on Sunday Night"
Guy 2 - "OK, its not a bad film, shall we show it on BBC HD too, ?"
Guy 1 - "Erm no, lets show Wind in the Willows instead, it sounds similar, they'll never notice"

Come on BBC, get a grip, I can't believe I am paying your wages with my licence and you are making %$^£ decisions like that. Love or hate it, no-one can say that this film wouldn't look great in HD.

[Shaun666]

Originally Posted by dpluxor

Is there anyone at the BBC with any sense at all

I can just imagine the conversation at their daily scheduling meetings or whatever they have.

Guy 1 - "Right, lets show War of the Worlds on BBC1 on Sunday Night"
Guy 2 - "OK, its not a bad film, shall we show it on BBC HD too, ?"
Guy 1 - "Erm no, lets show Wind in the Willows instead, it sounds similar, they'll never notice"

Come on BBC, get a grip, I can't believe I am paying your wages with my licence and you are making %$^£ decisions like that. Love or hate it, no-one can say that this film wouldn't look great in HD.

I'd like to see it on HD too but I'm not sure it would actually look that good. Both this and Minority Report are shot to look grainy with washed out colours and the grain might well look excessive in HD.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by dpluxor

Love or hate it, no-one can say that this film wouldn't look great in HD.

It has been on Sky in HD quite recently.

The HD PQ was not the best, the original film does have a very high 'grain' quota which the HD accentuates.

[Broadz]

Along with 300 and Sin City, one of the worst films I have ever seen in high definition - you can really see how grainy and badly filmed it is when watching the HD version of it. I fully understand the BBC's POV.

[johny1980]

Yep war of the worlds was on sky HD and picture was crap

300 was not to bad, blur-ray had a slight edge over the sky showing

The 'grainy' effect is crap on dark scenes but i find bright scenes can look very very good

so because of this 300 was both good & bad

Sin City on sky i thought was an amazing picture, is your tv setup correctly ?

[Broadz]

Originally Posted by johny1980

is your tv setup correctly ?

Yes - Sin City is just another very grainy movie where the grain is even more pronounced in high definition.

[KeithO]

Originally Posted by Broadz

Along with 300 and Sin City, one of the worst films I have ever seen in high definition - you can really see how grainy and badly filmed it is when watching the HD version of it. I fully understand the BBC's POV.

Grainy yes. But badly filmed? I'd argue that was the director's intention, to give a certain look and feel to the film. You might not like it, but I don't think you can say it was badly filmed.

[Broadz]

Originally Posted by KeithO

Grainy yes. But badly filmed? I'd argue that was the director's intention, to give a certain look and feel to the film. You might not like it, but I don't think you can say it was badly filmed.

Agreed. IMO badly filmed - but some people may like it (though I've yet to meet anybody who likes it...)

[thewhofan]

Watched WOTW in HD a while back and thought the slight improvement over SD didn't add much to the film as it was filmed with quite a lot of grain. Sin City however is one of the best HD films I've seen on sky, pin sharp with so much detail, still have this recorded in my planner from the beginning of 2007. Hope they show Monster Inc as I missed this when it was aired.

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by Broadz

IMO badly filmed

One of the funniest posts I've read in a long time.

Along with the 300 comment, its unbelievable.

[Pecker]

Just because it's grainy doesn't mean it's bad.

Just because you can see more grain in high def doesn't mean it's worse.

If you see more picture detail in high def, and the grain remains as in the original, that's fine with me.

Steve W

[Broadz]

Originally Posted by coldmachine

One of the funniest posts I've read in a long time.

Along with the 300 comment, its unbelievable.

Unbelievable in what way? Because you think that the picture quality in these two films is actually quite good (when it obviously isn't)?

[coldmachine]

Originally Posted by Broadz

Unbelievable in what way? Because you think that the picture quality in these two films is actually quite good (when it obviously isn't)?

Even funnier.

[Broadz]

Originally Posted by coldmachine

Even funnier.

Don't you get out much? I don't understand why you think the picture quality in these two films (particularly War Of The Worlds) is that good? Haven't you seen any other high def movies where the picture quality is outstanding? Then you'd realise how poor the grain is in War Of The Worlds. It looks terrible.

[Starburst]

The term "badly filmed" in my mind points to a lack of competence and skill by the director (Plan9 is badly filmed ) and well that's not a description of Spielberg however you can certainly criticise his choices if they fail to meet your own expectations or demands.

I personally think WotW looks awful in HD and pretty poor on DVD (not seen it theatrical) but all that aside it's just one of the worse movies the guy has made.

In regards to 300 I can accept the look of that movie very easily, it's not meant to be realistic so grain/noise isn't an issue no more so then the chosen colour palate.